1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was under the influence of alcohol at around 0.114% of alcohol level on September 1, 2015, and was driving B rocketing car at the 17km section from the roads near Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office to the salary class located in 202, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, on September 10, 2015, the defendant issued a disposition to revoke the driver's license (class 1 common) for the plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The instant disposition asserted by the Plaintiff is an unlawful disposition that deviates from and abused discretion, given that it is too harsh to the Plaintiff in light of the circumstances indicated in the attached list.

B. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion under the social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.

In such a case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative affairs rules inside the administrative agency, and thus externally binding the citizens or the courts. Thus, the legality of the pertinent disposition shall be determined not only in accordance with the above disposition criteria but also in accordance with the contents and purport

Therefore, it conforms to its disposition standards.

Thus, the pertinent disposition cannot be deemed legitimate. However, barring any reasonable ground to believe that the disposition is not in itself consistent with the Constitution or laws, or that the result of the application of the said criteria is considerably unreasonable in light of the content of the act of violation and the relevant statutes and the purport of the relevant statutes, the disposition based on the said standards shall be readily concluded.